4 ms·

What impresses me with this article is how accurately the lack of substance of its title represents the lack of substance of the article itself. This is a shoc

What impresses me with this article is how accurately the lack of substance of its title represents the lack of substance of the article itself. This is a shockingly empty title. And the article follows suit. Some languages are more verbose than others. Those that are more verbose often don't need to be, unless when they do, then they do. Bummer. And if you zoom in on some function call then you see that a one-liner is hiding more complexity too. Who would have thought! Such an immense waste of time that I have honestly no clue why the author went to lengths to write this all down.

ivalm 6y ago
Maybe this is a kind of promotion of zig? Not sure who jfo is, no about page and whois records are private. Anyways, it kind of worked, I didn’t know zig before and now I do.
laumars 6y ago
I was also confused by the lack of focus on the article. It felt like it was an article of two halves: 1. An example of the how printing isn’t simple and how different languages hide that complexity in different places (though even there it gets weirdly hung up on the difference between “scripting” and systems languages despite the examples clearly showing the same kind of abstractions hiding the same kind of complexities) 2. A low level dive into the Zig programming language. This felt more like promo piece, which is perfectly fine, but where the article stated it’s not about Zig specifically is clearly a misrepresentation when more than 50% of the article specifically covered the Zig compiler. I think this would have made more sense as two articles. One as a high level overview of how different languages handle builtins / core libraries like ‘println’, and another that is unashamedly a Zig promo piece (and there isn’t any shame in promo pieces here because languages that aren’t sponsored by big corps need such articles to garner developer interest).
- enriquto 6y ago
  It seems that the first "half" is just an introduction and setting of context for the second part. It worked out quite well for me, but I found the wording a bit too verbose and philosophical at times.

ivalm 6y ago

Maybe this is a kind of promotion of zig? Not sure who jfo is, no about page and whois records are private. Anyways, it kind of worked, I didn’t know zig before and now I do.

laumars 6y ago

I was also confused by the lack of focus on the article. It felt like it was an article of two halves: 1. An example of the how printing isn’t simple and how different languages hide that complexity in different places (though even there it gets weirdly hung up on the difference between “scripting” and systems languages despite the examples clearly showing the same kind of abstractions hiding the same kind of complexities) 2. A low level dive into the Zig programming language. This felt more like promo piece, which is perfectly fine, but where the article stated it’s not about Zig specifically is clearly a misrepresentation when more than 50% of the article specifically covered the Zig compiler. I think this would have made more sense as two articles. One as a high level overview of how different languages handle builtins / core libraries like ‘println’, and another that is unashamedly a Zig promo piece (and there isn’t any shame in promo pieces here because languages that aren’t sponsored by big corps need such articles to garner developer interest).

enriquto 6y ago
It seems that the first "half" is just an introduction and setting of context for the second part. It worked out quite well for me, but I found the wording a bit too verbose and philosophical at times.